I’m a believer in non-consensus investing—that is, taking advantage of investment opportunities that don’t fit into the conventional framework used by other investors. A leap of faith is sometimes necessary. I like these investments because they require independent thinking and going against the grain, two things I embrace. To get to conviction on these opportunities, I usually do a deep dive into them, so I understand them well.

After I’ve made one of these investments, I sometimes share my thinking with other investors who are using more conventional frameworks. Recently, an investor agreed with my analysis but still didn’t think my investment was a good one because this kind of investment hasn’t historically produced significant returns.

I respect his opinion—after all, I asked for it—but I disagree. Someone must be the first to do something. The person who makes a non-consensus investment first or early is usually going to reap an outsize return, assuming it works out. When other investors follow, their returns are likely to revert to the mean because of the increase in capital chasing the opportunity. I’d rather be in the former group. I like investing in things others might not. It’s more mentally stimulating, has more upside potential, and is a better fit with my personality and wiring.

Today it was reported that Google has a revenue-sharing agreement with Apple that pays the iPhone maker a staggering 36% of the revenue that Google earns from search ads on Apple’s Safari browser. The two companies have had a partnership since 2002 that makes Google search the default search engine on Safari. These details were revealed in testimony in an antitrust lawsuit.

I don’t know how much revenue Apple receives under this agreement, but I’d imagine it’s in the billion if not tens of billions of dollars annually, given the global popularity of iPhone and other Apple devices.

Apple’s successful hardware business has another benefit for Apple. These devices are highly effective modes for distributing software and other digital tools, and companies wanting to distribute digital offerings to consumers will pay Apple to do it for them. Apple’s App Store and the revenue-sharing agreement with Google demonstrate that Apple is aware of its distribution power and plans to continue to monetize these capabilities.

Early in 2023, I challenged myself to read more SEC filings of publicly traded technology companies. I’ve been reading S-1 initial registration reports for companies preparing to go public for several years. This year I’ve incorporated 10Q quarterly reports and 10K annual reports into my reading. I wasn’t sure when I began whether it would be worth the time and energy, but I figured I had more to gain than lose by trying it. 

Here are my takeaways:

• Financials – The company’s financial performance is laid bare in these reports. The good, the bad, and the ugly are there for everyone to see. Some company financials are complex; others, simple. Interpreting what the numbers mean sometimes requires work. It isn’t always fun, but once I figure it out, I’ve usually learned something useful.
• Business model – Companies detail their inner workings and how they generate revenue. They share all kinds of interesting tidbits, such as plans for future revenue sources and concerns about the stickiness of current revenue. I usually got lots of ideas after reading the specifics of a company’s business model.
• Risks – Companies detail all risks associated with the business. This is basically a list of what keeps the CEO up at night. Sometimes the risks listed surprise me.
• Competitors – Most companies list their top competitors.
• Trends – After I’ve read multiple reports from a company, I start to see trends and patterns (good and bad).
• Executive compensation – Executive compensation usually has its own section, with compensation plans described in detail. Large stock option grants based on hitting lofty stock price or market cap objectives seem common in CEO incentive packages.
• Ownership – The S-1, and sometimes other reports, detail how much of the company executives and investors own. Very interesting. Especially if it was VC backed.
• Stock-based compensation – A good number of technology companies have high stock-based-compensation expenses. This is essentially the expense the company incurs for paying employees with RSUs, stock options, etc. I’m curious whether this practice will continue at the levels seen in the last fifteen years, given how much it dilutes the holdings of other shareholders.
• Perception – After reading these reports, I sometimes reach a conclusion about a company that differs from popular opinion in the financial media.
• Dense – These reports are typically long. I can read them only when I’ve got an uninterrupted block of time when I can focus.

The filings of public companies are full of information that entrepreneurs and investors will find helpful. I wish I’d read public filings from companies in my industry when I was building my company. I’m sure it would have positively influenced my thinking and decision making. Anyone interested in reading these reports for their favorite company can search for them on the SEC Edgar website here.

I recently had a conversation with a friend about investing strategies. He’s smart and well educated, has an amazing career, and is forward thinking. We talked about public market investing, and I brought up the topic of compounding. He said he understood it and quickly moved on in the conversation.

He understood the concept, but I wasn’t convinced he understood the power of compounding. I shared a post containing a simple example that I wrote a few months back. When he looked at the numbers, it clicked. He understood how rate of growth and time work together to produce outsize results.

Albert Einstein famously called compound interest the eighth wonder of the world. It’s one of the most powerful forces that can be applied in many facets of life, not just money. Still, many don’t truly understand the power of compounding and aren’t taking advantage of it. They’re making progress toward their goals—but at a much slower pace than they could be.

I’ve been following the WeWork story for the last few months (see here and here). In August, the company, in a quarterly filing, warned of doubt the business could continue. Today it officially filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, with $19 billion in liabilities and assets worth $15 billion listed in its filing.

Chapter 11 bankruptcy doesn’t mean the company will cease operations. Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code allows a company to reorganize and renegotiate its debts with creditors while it continues to operate. The hope is that the company will be able to exit bankruptcy with a more reasonable debt load.

Today marks another low point for a well-known, venture capital–backed company that raised over $22 billion in equity and debt financing over the years and was valued at $47 billion as recently as 2019.

I’m curious to see how this bankruptcy process will play out and what the company will look like if it successfully exits bankruptcy.

Yesterday I shared definitions of three kinds of leverage from Joel Greenblatt, founder of Gotham Asset Management. One of them was investment leverage by borrowing. This involves using debt or borrowed capital to increase an investor’s capital base, which allows them to deploy more capital into an investment. If an investor were limited to investing using only personal capital, they’d likely be using a materially smaller capital base to make investments (if they were investing at all).

Venture capital funds are examples of investment leverage by borrowing. General partners (GPs) raise a fund from limited partners (LPs). Essentially, the GP borrows capital from LPs with the goal of repaying it, plus a share of the profits, in the future. Fund GPs will usually contribute personal capital that amounts to around 1% to 2% of the total fund. This is called the GP commitment.

So, if a $25 million fund is raised, the GPs will commit $500k (assuming a 2% GP commitment). The other $24.5 million is essentially borrowed from LPs.

Investing $500k of your personal money is quite different from investing $25 million of your and other people’s money. The deals you evaluate and can participate in look drastically dissimilar.

There are other aspects of GP and LP economics and relationship that I won’t get into here. But this demonstrates how a venture capital fund is essentially a vehicle that allows a venture capital investor to use investment leverage by borrowing to increase their capital. If the fund is successful and generates returns, the GP will personally receive significantly bigger returns from their investments that they would if they used only their personal capital. That’s leverage at work.

I’ve been having conversations with friends about leverage. One thing I’ve picked up on is that leverage doesn’t mean the same thing to everyone. With a little digging, I found definitions used by Joel Greenblatt, founder of Gotham Asset Management, that I think are pretty accurate:

• Financial leverage – The amount of debt a company has taken on relative to its equity. It can lead to higher returns for shareholders if the company can earn a higher return on the money borrowed than it cost to borrow it.
• Investment leverage by borrowing – Money borrowed by an investor for the purpose of purchasing an investment.
• Investment leverage by contract – A payment by an investor of a (relatively) small amount up front to purchase the right to purchase an asset later.

These are straightforward ways to think about what leverage is. We can see, thinking about these definitions, that a lot of people and companies use leverage in some form or fashion.

Today, the Wall Street Journal reported that Waystar, a healthcare payments software company, has postponed its initial public offering (IPO). The company is in a late stage of the IPO process—it was scheduled to launch its roadshow to pitch potential investors this week, and it’s normal to see a company do its roadshow a week or two before a public listing.

From what I can tell, Waystar is majority owned by private equity firms and was last valued at $2.7 billion in 2019.

This has been a lackluster IPO year, and this postponement is another sign of how challenging things may be for the rest of the year. I’m curious to see how many IPOs are completed in 2023 and what creative ways private equity and venture capital fund managers come up with to get liquidity if the IPO market remains depressed.

A few months back, I shared that WeWork had issued a dire warning in its quarterly financial filing: “substantial doubt exists about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern.”

Today, the Wall Street Journal reported that WeWork is planning to file for chapter 11 bankruptcy. To be fair, it hasn’t filed yet, and something could happen to allow it to avert bankruptcy and continue to operate.

Regardless, this is a stunning fall for a well-known, venture capital–backed company. Crunchbase says that the company has raised over $22 billion in equity and debt financing over the years. Its valuation peaked in 2019, when it raised a reported $6 billion from Softbank at a $47 billion valuation. When I shared the dire-warning post on August 9, 2023, the company had a market capitalization (i.e., valuation) of $272 million. As of today, October 31, 2023, it’s worth $120 million. From $47 billion to $120 million in roughly four years is a staggering valuation drop.

I’m curious to see what happens next with WeWork and if it will impact investor and founder sentiment.

A few months back, I shared some stats on initial public offerings (IPOs). I’d learned that 2021 had the highest number of IPOs (1,035) in more than twenty-five years. The next year it dropped off a cliff; 181 IPOs were completed in 2022.

We have right at two months remaining in 2023, and I wanted to see how IPO activity this year stacks up. As of today, we’ve seen 131 IPOs. For context, the lowest number of IPOs since the great financial crisis, 133, was in 2016. This year will likely end up with the second-lowest number of IPOs in that period.

I view IPOs as an indicator of public-market investor sentiment. The data shows that sentiment has gone from one extreme in 2021 to the other in 2023. 

If you want more data on annual IPO activity, take a look here.